Kansas v Texas: Close Block/Charge Play

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I don't like that the rule book does not take into account a player looking away from the defender in order to catch a pass, but alas... it doesn't.

This would fall under ART. 5 of the section on guarding, as the defender was initially defending a moving opponent without the ball. To obtain LGP in this case time and distance are factors. However, when the defender got set the offensive player had time and space to avoid contact... he just didn't see that he had to do so. Unfortunately for myself and that offensive player, being able to see the defender being set doesn't matter. It should... but it doesn't.

deecee mentioned that line of sight doesn't matter, and I missed that.

No one is making the offensive player not look where he is going. The real fault in this play is the his teammate who threw the pass that led him into a charge.

[Brad]

I think everyone is right by rule that it is a charge, but I definitely agree with the sentiment that it should be a block. It's a total BS play.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Brad

I think everyone is right by rule that it is a charge, but I definitely agree with the sentiment that it should be a block. It's a total BS play.

So a ballhandler just has to look away and the contact is the defenders fault?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

So a ballhandler just has to look away and the contact is the defenders fault?

No, I think he would apply time and distance rules in this case if he had a choice. IOW, two steps like on a screen.

[OKREF]

I can see why it's called a block. Looks to me the defender is moving forward when the contact happens, or least leaning forward and into the offensive player.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Brad

I think everyone is right by rule that it is a charge, but I definitely agree with the sentiment that it should be a block. It's a total BS play.

I tend to concur...but I'd still charge this.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by APG

I tend to concur...but I'd still charge this.

I think it is a dumb offensive play to expect that you can fly down the court without looking where you're going. Even if the defender was there for 3-4 steps as the pass was coming in the offensive player would have still crushed him. Players have to be responsible for where they are moving.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think it is a dumb offensive play to expect that you can fly down the court without looking where you're going. Even if the defender was there for 3-4 steps as the pass was coming in the offensive player would have still crushed him. Players have to be responsible for where they are moving.

Except most of the time, the defender isn't there for 3-4 steps and only attempts to take the charge at the last second. IMO, it' just a cheap way to try and play defense much like trying to run over and take a charge under the basket. The latter is all but gone from almost all levels of play...I wouldn't be surprised to see the former get eliminated by more than the NBA in the future.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by APG

Except most of the time, the defender isn't there for 3-4 steps and only attempts to take the charge at the last second. IMO, it' just a cheap way to try and play defense much like trying to run over and take a charge under the basket. The latter is all but gone from almost all levels of play...I wouldn't be surprised to see the former get eliminated by more than the NBA in the future.

Blocking a player's desired path is the essence of defense. The offense is in control of where and when to throw the pass. Nothing makes them throw that pass. If they see a defender that can cut off their path, they should choose a different path....unless of course you would rather watch layup drills.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think it is a dumb offensive play to expect that you can fly down the court without looking where you're going. Even if the defender was there for 3-4 steps as the pass was coming in the offensive player would have still crushed him. Players have to be responsible for where they are moving.

I see this the same as I do when it comes to a receiver going for a pass in football.

If a receiver, who is watching the incoming pass not the defense, runs into a defender before making the catch it is the defender who is penalized... not the receiver.

In that case, should the receiver be penalized, while we praise the defender for doing a good job? And do so because the receiver should have looked where he was running? No.

BTW, I'm not using that football reference to say the defender in this thread should have gotten the blocking call. I'm merely showing how somebody could make a legitimate gripe about this rule.

On the flip side, I agree that any player should watch where they're going.

So I'm playing both sides here.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I see this the same as I do when it comes to a receiver going for a pass in football.

If a receiver, who is watching the incoming pass not the defense, runs into a defender before making the catch it is the defender who is penalized... not the receiver.

Not a good comparison. The defender in football has no incentive to get to a certain spot first and be stationary. On the contrary, he benefits from laying back and timing his arrival to coincide with that of the ball.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Not a good comparison. The defender in football has no incentive to get to a certain spot first and be stationary. On the contrary, he benefits from laying back and timing his arrival to coincide with that of the ball.

It's something that popped in my head while watching the play.

[Welpe]

Can somebody post verbatim what Adams had to say about this play (text is fine, don't need the rule)?

I'm really trying to wrap my head around how he can possibly justify saying 4-17-5 applies here.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Can somebody post verbatim what Adams had to say about this play (text is fine, don't need the rule)?

I'm really trying to wrap my head around how he can possibly justify saying 4-17-5 applies here.

His only comments were that it was a correct call per 4-17-5.a-d.

[Welpe]

Hmm interesting yet puzzling. Wish he would have hashed this one out more.

He wasn't making these comments while visiting Colorado by chance, was he?